Craig Ringer wrote: > Henry Hartley wrote: >> Nigel Ridley wrote: >>>> This is really a newbie question but I would really like to know: >>>> Does Scribus only use the part of a photo/graphic that is viewable >>>> in the graphic frame or does the whole photo/graphic get put into >>>> the end file size regardless of how much has been cropped out. >>>> Is that clear? If not - let's say I have a 2.5Mb .jpg that I put >>>> into a Scribus document. I then crop the .jpg as I only want a >>>> section of the photo in the finished document - is there still >>>> 2.5Mb of .jpg in the document? >>>> >>>> The reason I'm asking is that I want to make a small booklet >>>> available on my website for download but obviously want to keep >>>> the file size down to something reasonable (there will probably >>>> be several graphics in the finished document). >> It appears that the final PDF will have the entire image in it. > > That is correct, at least when resampling is off. I'm not sure if > Scribus crops the image if resampling is on or not. > > There are several reasons for this behaviour: > > - If we include the whole image, and it's a JPEG source, > we don't have to re-compress it. This is a quality and > (for small crops) often size saving. > > - The image can be included in the file just once, and > differerent parts referenced from different places in > the file. You might use the left side on one side of > the page, and the right on another. You might use > part of the image as an inset in one place, and the > full size one later, etc. This can be supported without > making the file bigger by including the whole image in > the first place. > > Scribus would probably benefit from some heuristics for image slicing - > when we should `cut up' the image and embed only the bits that're use, > and when the whole image is best embedded. Factors such as source image > type (we should be more reluctant to chop up images we can otherwise > embed without modification) and percentage image used would need to be > considered. However, I don't personally see this as a particularly > urgent feature. > > -- > Craig Ringer > _______________________________________________ > Scribus mailing list > Scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de > http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/mailman/listinfo/scribus > >
Does this mean (with regards to the image quality) that it is better to save photos as .png's since it is a lossless format? Do .png's have a better or similar image quality as un-altered .jpg's? Blessings, Nigel -- OliveRoot Ministries http://www.oliveroot.net/ PrayingForIsrael.net http://www.prayingforisrael.net/
